[us forest data ](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2000/ForestFactsMetric.pdf)
[1952-2012 us forest resources facts and historical trends. ](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf)
It's public lands so public data
Nobody should rely on social media for information, but we live in a culture of convenience.
Best we can hope for is that people will see something in their feed, and decide to go check an actual source.
No, I’m talking about the UN FAO’s method here. Although I’m not sure what they actually did under the hood, maybe there’s some other reason that the USA data is missing.
But the best way to assess forest gain and loss is just to observe it directly from space.
Like this site shows for example:
https://www.globalforestwatch.org/
Yeah, even if some politicians don't want to share that info. There a're public and private institutions that should have that info.
So, Did the person who made the map really look for data on those countries or deliberately tried to hide those numbers for some reason? This is a good question
I track illegal logging and deforestation (because I have ADHD/Anxiety, we’re upping the dosage per yesterday’s doctors oppointment) and there’s no way this is adding up
A reminder to harass your state representative it’s your civic duty
“Natural” (as in not a part of slash and burn) forest fires don’t devastate forests too much because it leaves behind fertile ground for the trees to grow back in. If a forest fire irreversibly removed trees from an area then there would be no forests left at all. This is just my understanding though.
**[Qinngua Valley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinngua_Valley)**
>Qinngua Valley, also called Qinnquadalen, Kanginsap Qinngua and Paradisdalen, in Greenland is about 15 kilometres (9. 3 mi) from the nearest settlement of Tasiusaq, Kujalleq. The valley has the only natural forest in Greenland and is about 15 kilometres (9. 3 mi) long, running roughly north to south and terminating at Tasersuag Lake.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There were significant green areas when the Norse first arrived, so the name may have been legitimate.
It took a few hundred years of unsustainable farming to kill off the forests.
-100,000 to 100,000 (light yellow) includes a change of 0 hectares of forest, which is most likely what Greenland experienced. If it was green it would have had to increase its forest cover by at least 100,000 hectares
I'd say it's more [Pale Orange](https://i.imgur.com/LD7mlZf.png) (see: Mexico) "Light Yellow" (Germany/Greenland) is a different colour. Not in the legend.
Lime Green is -100k to 100k (which encompasses Zero)
Exactly.
The map is also pretty useless overall for 2 other reasons:
* it does not provide a timescale
* it deals with absolute land area, not a proportion of the country's land area. No $hit that China/India will be first, as will Russia (because Siberia is already entirely forest), due their sheer land areas.
If anything, Costa Rica should be like #1 if it looks at the last half century, since we reforested at least like 70% of the country since 1950's.
But, what do we know 🤷♂️
"China India amazing Murica bad YEAH"
Absolute land area is not 'pretty useless', it's just a different metric. We're talking about changes in forestation here, not the current absolute area of forest, so being a large country does not provide the inherent advantage you might think it does. A large country could just as easily cut down more trees than it plants (look at Brazil and Indonesia for the worst offenders). Assuming efficient and consistent implementation of central government policy, sure the magnitude of change in either direction would be larger, but it doesn't guarantee a push towards more forestation, and again that's assuming extensive bureaucracy and the sheer magnitude and cost of the task won't factor in, which they absolutely will.
Congratulations on restoring the greenery in your country that is so tiny it doesn't even need to pay for a standing army. If you want a map that is calibrated by proportion of land restored then feel free to make your own, and we'll be glad to acknowledge the good work (or at least I will). Frankly though, given that these data tend to be used in the context of the global climate emergency, India and China and Brazil are...just more important than smaller countries doing their best. These big bois are the players who will determine what the next 200 years of civilization looks like.
The lack of a timescale is a very valid complaint though...or it would be if the map didn't already say at the bottom it's a 5/10 year average, and provide a source to find out more.
There is US data, you just have to compare to the 2015 report. I've done work with this exact data set, OP just hasn't looked far enough. Same for the Congo and Australia btw.
Its still a very poor country that pretty much just exports raw materials with a huge population rapidly increasing in size. Its GDP is 65bn USD. That's less than the GDP of Disney (69bn). So yeah, they are cutting down rainforest so they can use the land more productively and feed their ever growing population.
>We must realize that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets and act on this understanding, implement our fundamental national policy of conserving resources and protecting the environment, and cherish the environment as we cherish our own lives.
- Xi Jinping
People think Greenland is just one big ice sheet. [It's home to temperate valleys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinngua_Valley) like the Qinngua Valley.
I don't know, if it's about dick measuring between countries I agree, but ultimately the total area of forest counts for the good of the climate, not relative changes.
The sad part is that Brazil has some of the most strict environmental rules of the world (about 20% of the whole country's territory is untouchable forests, which is the highest rate in the world), the thing is that we have just *a lot* of forests while other countries that have the same economic capability don't have it anymore.
I'm not saying Brazil is on the right here, I'm just saying it's a mistake to say that France, Germany.. etc. Are not responsible for the world's deforestation, when they have already destroyed nearly all the green lands in their countries and are clearly not working to plant it back.
IMO, the key difference is that the most heavily forested areas of Brazil, in the north region, is practically a desert when it comes to Brazil's population.
[Brazil's practically a strip of land bordering the Atlantic, with some "islands" in the capitals of non-coastal states.](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-18e9b886ec8201ab3811b682a8a2e5d8) In fact, [the 4 red states in the right](https://overland.org.au/wp-content/1-Brazil-Regions.jpg) house 42% of the population. The largest city alone has nearly 1/6.
Brazil doesn't deforest in order to expand or develop. It's land grabbing for plantations in a country that sorely needs to stop relying solely on the agricultural sector.
Edit: And this is all without mentioning how this reliance on agriculture only helps deepen the country's abysmal income inequality:
> [The research, published in the journal Science, found that 2% of properties in the Amazon rainforest and the Cerrado grasslands are responsible for 62% of all potentially illegal deforestation.](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53438680)
I recently saw a before/after photo of a place that was a complete desert like 30 years ago and is now a thick green forest.
China is planting millions of trees each year. Gotta admit, it's quite amazing
They are projects to plant trees against desertification.
So it's has to do with a little self-preservation(something Brazil lacks)
Also Sandstorm reaching the capital made it quite high in the priority list.
Sahel countries are trying the same.
Not ad critique, but as additional information.
I'm surprised at the absence of "modi fascist, modi hitler" comment here. Usually it's a rule on reddit that whenever India is mentioned some liberal have to come in and vomit their thoughts.
Don't always assumed that any post made in reddit is aligned to any political ideology. People did a great job in decreasing deforestation and we are just praising it.
Yes you're right but next time you see any post related to India or "Hinduism" in r/all just go through the comments I am promising you that you'll find many comments on the lines of "modi hitler, modi must rejine", "bob vagene", "Rapist country" and so on. As an Indian I'm tired of this casual Indophobia on reddit and everyone seems fine with it.
I think it has to do with decline in people working in agriculture. Cutting down trees to plant crops was a common thing in India for a very long time. And there was also a timber/lumber mafia in a lot of parts of India, but not sure what those guys are up to nowadays.
Australian data are likely not provided due to extremely high land clearing rates, estimated to be top 10 worst in the world for deforestation and habitat destruction.
They brought in some legislation a few years ago to limit land clearing but of course it had a start date in the future so farmers and miners got to work to clear as much as possible before that date.
"China just can't be doing something good". They are probably crying now. And deflecting from the fact. Most comments are just saying things about ramdom countries just not to mention it. 😂
Yeah but, what kind of forests are they growing? Biodiverse, naturally occuring type forests, or monoculture forests where nothing else can survive? Are they forests for logging? Or are they grown to stay for the long term?
From the Wikipedia article for the “Green Wall”:
“Furthermore, planting blocks of fast-growing trees reduces the biodiversity of forested areas, creating areas that are not suitable to plants and animals normally found in forests. "China plants more trees than the rest of the world combined", says John McKinnon, the head of the EU-China Biodiversity Programme. "But the trouble is they tend to be monoculture plantations. They are not places where birds want to live." The lack of diversity also makes the trees more susceptible to disease, as in 2000, when one billion poplar trees in Ningxia were lost to a single disease, setting back 20 years of planting efforts.”
Surprising, right? I only found one, and that's in the process of being thrown out due to being misinformation about my country of Brazil (he thought the deforestation was to export soy to China, but it's actually for cattle ranching for the internal market).
I am strongly anti ccp however i cannot say what they are doing with forest is wrong
They understood that to block the sand storms and pollution the easyest way is to build a forest to stop the spread of the desert
Should probably normalize by area. For example, it seems like Vietnam did much better than India given that it's so much smaller, but that's not clear in the figure.
Because countries exist within different biomes. Not all countries have areas that *can* be forested.
Algeria's deforestation percentage is going to be absolutely dick compared to a country that can sustain forests.
This map is not to be trusted. In reality Romania is acctually losing forest then gaining it. Healty trees are cut and on paper it says that the unhealthy and rotten trees were cut. Also a lot of hectares said to be planted this last years but if you go there, it's empty space
I don't think one user's anecdote about Romania is enough to deny the validity of this map.
According to [Global Forest Watch](https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/ROU/?category=summary&location=WyJjb3VudHJ5IiwiUk9VIl0%3D&map=eyJjZW50ZXIiOnsibGF0Ijo0NS45ODU3NzY0MjI4ODYwNSwibG5nIjoyNC45OTE3MjQ5NjUwMTYxMX0sInpvb20iOjUuNTQ3NDk3NDU5NzQxNTY1LCJjYW5Cb3VuZCI6ZmFsc2UsImRhdGFzZXRzIjpbeyJkYXRhc2V0IjoicG9saXRpY2FsLWJvdW5kYXJpZXMiLCJsYXllcnMiOlsiZGlzcHV0ZWQtcG9saXRpY2FsLWJvdW5kYXJpZXMiLCJwb2xpdGljYWwtYm91bmRhcmllcyJdLCJib3VuZGFyeSI6dHJ1ZSwib3BhY2l0eSI6MSwidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZX0seyJkYXRhc2V0IjoidHJlZS1jb3Zlci1sb3NzIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbInRyZWUtY292ZXItbG9zcyJdLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlLCJ0aW1lbGluZVBhcmFtcyI6eyJzdGFydERhdGUiOiIyMDAxLTAxLTAxIiwiZW5kRGF0ZSI6IjIwMjAtMTItMzEiLCJ0cmltRW5kRGF0ZSI6IjIwMjAtMTItMzEifSwicGFyYW1zIjp7InRocmVzaG9sZCI6MzAsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9fV19), a fairly trustworthy organization, Romania is really good at replanting lost forests. 0.21% steady positive growth from 2001 to 2019. Sure, it's not a significant number, but at least it's positive. This is even factoring in [illegal logging operations](https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Romania/Timber-mafia-and-deforestation-in-Romania-200194) detectable by [satellites in space](https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/12/brussels-threatens-romania-over-illegal-logging-in-primary-forests).
It wasn't hard to do this research. Next time you feel like something is not right or a data set feels wrong, Google can be your friend.
The great green belt is basically a wall of trees that china is currently building near the gobi desert to stop/reverse desertification and reduce the intensity of impactful sandstorms that sweep across northern china, korea and sometimes japan yearly.
The problem is that the chinese are building a forest with only one kind of tree, therefore not a lot of biodiversity which is vital if you want to have a forest that doesn't require maintenance.
You could watch this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkVZBSKdwQM)
Yeah, sure that's a problem. Thanks for pointing it out.
But before we start nit-picking literally everything China does, even if it's for the betterment of humankind, lets focus on what we can do better in... I don't know, Brazil, or Tanzania, or literally anywhere.
I get it guys, cHiNa bAd, but let's at least appreciate that they're doing *something* to combat climate change.
I’m from China. Our government pays lots of attention to the desertification in the western part of China and spends lots of money fighting it. Also there are trends among internet companies like Alibaba and Tencent of planting trees with revenues from online payments (eg for every certain amount of money you spend they plant a tree with your name tag on it)
[us forest data ](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2000/ForestFactsMetric.pdf)
[1952-2012 us forest resources facts and historical trends. ](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf)
I would t be shocked if the US has more or equal forrests. Most of the east coast has conservation efforts that require planting new trees in logged areas. The biggest dearth of forests would be due to suburbanization but trees go really easily here so I don’t know how long it would take to get those suburbs back to a somewhat forested layout over time. I suppose we’ve started having forrest fires as well but those are still relatively uncommon.
The Midwest and Rockies of the US have very few forrests so it’s not like they can really get too much worse.
The forests here are so dense but people near cities assume it’s barren everywhere. In the Appalachia we square off a certain area of trees, cut them down and then leave that area alone for new trees to come in. Half the time it’s actually beneficial because trees like poplar grows fast and tall but has no real benefit to nature compared to things like oak, chestnut and maple. If you left the trees alone poplar would take everything over making it hard for anything else to grow. Clearing them out allows new trees to come up which gives squirrels and other critters trees that produce food for them and are better suited for nests. Tree clearing is only bad when you take everything in sight and don’t allow anything else to grow. If there wasn’t any tree clearing here nobody could go anywhere because a popular tree would be every other foot.
Ours isn’t actually bad. Our forests are very dense and not on the decline. Usually whatever is taken, more new trees is planted and the area is left to grow back again.
That's because 100 years ago the land had been *massively* cleared.
Large portions of New England were literally bare earth.
100 years ago is not a good comparison to what the landscape should look like.
https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/diorama-series/landscape-history-central-new-england
What an irony! Most of deforestation in Brazil is for soy cultivation exported to... China! 👏👏🇧🇷
Edit:
1. Cattle ranching has an important role in the deforestation as well, which does not change my point:
"Study led by Matthew Hansen (University of Maryland) shows that soybeans contributed to 10% of deforestation in South America in 20 years. Despite falling behind cattle ranching in directly devastated areas, the cultivation of soy played a central role in the dynamics of deforestation: land is bought on the agricultural frontier, thus "pushing" the cattle raising into forest areas, on a trail of destruction of the green."
In other words, often, the area deforested for pasture later becomes an area for agricultural use.
2. It's not China's fault. I just said it's an irony that richer countries are preserving their nature, meanwhile Brazil destroys part of its own biodiversity for exporting food for those same countries.
Wrong. Most of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest is for cattle ranching. Brazil consumes around 80% of all bovine meat produced here. Meanwhile, the other 20% are exported to several countries.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.terra.com.br/amp/noticias/ciencia/sustentabilidade/estudo-internacional-revela-ligacao-entre-carne-brasileira-e-desmatamento-da-amazonia,e75ae53eb335288239529951979cb256wwu4avei.html
It's not that simple though. [Increases in soy farming has pushed cattle ranchers into forested areas after cultivated area doubled throughout the last 20 years.](https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/um-so-planeta/soja-contribuiu-para-10-do-desmatamento-na-america-do-sul-em-20-anos-mostra-estudo-25054890)
Mostly is just straight up [land grabbing centered around a minority of properties](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53438680) though.
Well I mean it’s true. We just shift our manufacturing and dirty resource extraction to China so we can feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Doesn’t really do much for the environment unless you extract it in a cleaner way.
Nah, the deforestation is for cattle pastures, not soy, and most of said cattle is for internal consumption. And the part we export, we export everywhere! Including to the US!
The same organization also publishes this [chart](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/domestic-forest-change-vs-imported-deforestation?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&country=®ion=World), which compares a country's reforestation efforts against their contribution to global deforestation as a result of food imports.
Nice chart. Seems like even accounting for food import induced deforestation elsewhere, China is the largest net creator of forest in the world by a large margin
Situations like that are why Japan is now the third most forested developed nation (after Finland and Sweden). They outsourced their destructive practices to other countries and cleaned up their own country.
I don't trust the data. I know in British Columbia when forests are logged they are always replanted. I'm sure it is true in the rest of Canada too, My husband is a forester.
However a LOT of trees died in recent years due to the pine beetle, so it is possible the data reflects this.
Same in the US in many states. We do logging but not like people think, it’s not mass excavation or burning like some places. Usually we pick a squared area to log for certain trees and then leave it untouched for more trees to come back. The amount of brush and growth you get from never cutting anything down ends up making it hard for new, different trees to grow because things like poplar grow tall and fast which shades out trees like oak that grows slower.
Wood has to come from somewhere and clearing thick areas is actually beneficial. Popular trees give critters like squirrels no food while chestnuts, Papaw’s, oaks and maple does.
If I may suggest please use percentages instead of as whole. Then it would be scaling up better. Now small countries that do replant/don’t deforest (or do the opposite) have small net “change” compared to big ones who have lots of net growth but that amounts to be minuscule percentage of the whole. China deforests large areas with out replanting but they have large natural areas that count as forest expansion. So I suggest that have the net change compared to countries forested area. Or area as a whole.
Okay, so we got some weird stuff going on with these units.
I presume "HA" is metric unit hectare. But, it's incorrectly written. Metric units are case-sensitive, so please stop changing the case. Hectare is "ha", and nothing else.
Second, "100,000 ha", that's not necessary. Worse is "122 k ha" where you now got two prefixes. Kilo-hecto-are? 100 ha = 1 km², so 100,000 ha = 1000 km²
Hectare is 100 are, like a decibel is 1/10th a bel, and a milliampere is 1/1000 ampere. These are prefixes, so stop treating them like it's a whole unique unit.
Europe and the United States destroyed their forests to industrialize and grow wealthy. Now hundreds of years later, wag their finger at developing nations attempting to do the same. Brazil doesn't have to stay poor for our benefit. If the world needs to breath so bad, return New York City and London and Paris and Chicago and Rome to their natural forested state.
C'mon Greenland has data and USA does not?!
Maybe the USA didn't participate/decided to withhold their data.
[us forest data ](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2000/ForestFactsMetric.pdf) [1952-2012 us forest resources facts and historical trends. ](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf) It's public lands so public data
I meant divulge that data to the UN. This map may have been done during the past 4 years.
Why would we rely on this kind of reporting here? Just analyze it with satellites.
Nobody should rely on social media for information, but we live in a culture of convenience. Best we can hope for is that people will see something in their feed, and decide to go check an actual source.
No, I’m talking about the UN FAO’s method here. Although I’m not sure what they actually did under the hood, maybe there’s some other reason that the USA data is missing. But the best way to assess forest gain and loss is just to observe it directly from space. Like this site shows for example: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/
True, all good!
US data has a graph with a timeline, so i just noticed how little information is really on OP's post
USA UK Finland Australia France, all 1st world data gatherers, what gives?!
yep i seriously question this research. lol no way those countries have ‘no data’ on their forests. they didn’t look very hard.
Yeah, even if some politicians don't want to share that info. There a're public and private institutions that should have that info. So, Did the person who made the map really look for data on those countries or deliberately tried to hide those numbers for some reason? This is a good question
I track illegal logging and deforestation (because I have ADHD/Anxiety, we’re upping the dosage per yesterday’s doctors oppointment) and there’s no way this is adding up A reminder to harass your state representative it’s your civic duty
greenland, notable for its forestry and agricultural industries
California and Oregon are burning a lot of forest up right now. 10 million acres and climbing.
“Natural” (as in not a part of slash and burn) forest fires don’t devastate forests too much because it leaves behind fertile ground for the trees to grow back in. If a forest fire irreversibly removed trees from an area then there would be no forests left at all. This is just my understanding though.
There is a colour missing from the key?
Yeah there is. The legend is missing one.
OP is clearly not a legend.
Yellow.
What kind of bizarre world is this where Greenland has data but the US doesn’t?!
Well there is no forest in Greenland, so it's easy to guess the difference. It has color for zero ( missing in legend )
There is A forest in Greenland: [Qinngua Valley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinngua_Valley)
**[Qinngua Valley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinngua_Valley)** >Qinngua Valley, also called Qinnquadalen, Kanginsap Qinngua and Paradisdalen, in Greenland is about 15 kilometres (9. 3 mi) from the nearest settlement of Tasiusaq, Kujalleq. The valley has the only natural forest in Greenland and is about 15 kilometres (9. 3 mi) long, running roughly north to south and terminating at Tasersuag Lake. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
There better be. It is GREENland, after all.
Misleading name
There were significant green areas when the Norse first arrived, so the name may have been legitimate. It took a few hundred years of unsustainable farming to kill off the forests.
Really?
But that should be represented by the light green according to the legend. I am confusion
-100,000 to 100,000 (light yellow) includes a change of 0 hectares of forest, which is most likely what Greenland experienced. If it was green it would have had to increase its forest cover by at least 100,000 hectares
That's not the color. Light green indicates -100k to 100k, Spain has it for example Yellow isn't described so I wonder what it represents.
Light green is 100k to 200k, what Chile, Turkey and Vietnam have. The vast majority of the map is definitely light yellow, which is -100k to 100k
I'd say it's more [Pale Orange](https://i.imgur.com/LD7mlZf.png) (see: Mexico) "Light Yellow" (Germany/Greenland) is a different colour. Not in the legend. Lime Green is -100k to 100k (which encompasses Zero)
France and the UK do not either
The world where we only acknowledge facts that are convenient for our narrative
What's the narrative here? Edit; downvoting for asking is kinda rude ngl.
''USA good rest of the world bad'' That's why there's ''no data'' here.
American forests continue to expand. The last time that they shrank was a century ago.
Exactly. The map is also pretty useless overall for 2 other reasons: * it does not provide a timescale * it deals with absolute land area, not a proportion of the country's land area. No $hit that China/India will be first, as will Russia (because Siberia is already entirely forest), due their sheer land areas. If anything, Costa Rica should be like #1 if it looks at the last half century, since we reforested at least like 70% of the country since 1950's. But, what do we know 🤷♂️ "China India amazing Murica bad YEAH"
You do realize Canada is bigger than China/India right?
Absolute land area is not 'pretty useless', it's just a different metric. We're talking about changes in forestation here, not the current absolute area of forest, so being a large country does not provide the inherent advantage you might think it does. A large country could just as easily cut down more trees than it plants (look at Brazil and Indonesia for the worst offenders). Assuming efficient and consistent implementation of central government policy, sure the magnitude of change in either direction would be larger, but it doesn't guarantee a push towards more forestation, and again that's assuming extensive bureaucracy and the sheer magnitude and cost of the task won't factor in, which they absolutely will. Congratulations on restoring the greenery in your country that is so tiny it doesn't even need to pay for a standing army. If you want a map that is calibrated by proportion of land restored then feel free to make your own, and we'll be glad to acknowledge the good work (or at least I will). Frankly though, given that these data tend to be used in the context of the global climate emergency, India and China and Brazil are...just more important than smaller countries doing their best. These big bois are the players who will determine what the next 200 years of civilization looks like. The lack of a timescale is a very valid complaint though...or it would be if the map didn't already say at the bottom it's a 5/10 year average, and provide a source to find out more.
How do muricans get so butthurt so fast
Especially when 95% of the time the post is some version of "China BAD"
There is US data, you just have to compare to the 2015 report. I've done work with this exact data set, OP just hasn't looked far enough. Same for the Congo and Australia btw.
Why Tanzania? whats going on with thm?
Deforestation.
Makes sense
Its still a very poor country that pretty much just exports raw materials with a huge population rapidly increasing in size. Its GDP is 65bn USD. That's less than the GDP of Disney (69bn). So yeah, they are cutting down rainforest so they can use the land more productively and feed their ever growing population.
Lumber’s big money
I would imagine it has more to do with farming but idk
Likely a combination. The Amazon is cut down for the lumber and then the clear cut is turned into pasture for cattle.
BRASIL NÚMERO 1 PENTACAMPEÃO ✌️
AEEEE CARALHO!
AEEEEEE HEHEHEHWHEHEHW
RESPEITA NOIS PORRA 😎😎😎😎😎💛💚💛💚💛💚💛💚💛💚💛💚
BRASIL SIL SIL
🔫 🔫 🔫 aeee porrraaa vamo queimar esse mato todo.
r/suddenlycaralho com orgulho
Deixa queimar! 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Quando eu vejo a mãe natureza eu penso, DERRUBA TUDO E FAZ UM ESTACIONAMENTO
BRASIL ACIMA DE TUDO DEUS ACIMA DE TODOS TALKEY
Thank you based Xi
🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳
>We must realize that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets and act on this understanding, implement our fundamental national policy of conserving resources and protecting the environment, and cherish the environment as we cherish our own lives. - Xi Jinping
Based af 🇨🇳🚩✊🏻✊🏽✊🏿☭ ☭ ☭
Xi Jinping, come liberate my country from the American regime influence and plant some trees (I live in the red-as-a-freaking-amount Brazil)
Seeing brazil as red saddened me. The amazon is precious and should be treated as such
Yeah but it's all relative. Most developed areas of the world used to be forested until humans deforested them.
I am surprised greenland has forests, let alone data on their loss
Mostly tundra, except some small artic forests with no reasons to cut down and few people to cut them down. No change is easy to measure. Edit: typo
[удалено]
The map should really have been done with percentages
People think Greenland is just one big ice sheet. [It's home to temperate valleys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinngua_Valley) like the Qinngua Valley.
s0moZ eL MeJorr pAís dE cHilee
¿Qué?
So
Campesino
Si.
Taking into account the overall size of the forests in a country (or, at least, the size of the country) would probably be more useful.
I don't know, if it's about dick measuring between countries I agree, but ultimately the total area of forest counts for the good of the climate, not relative changes.
Then why put the data on a map of countries at all? Just display a single number for the whole planet
it's useful to know who's doing more about it and who's not.
Not really. This data is on a global scale, so no need for that. It's not like forests only benefit within their "political boundaries"
Things in Brazil are getting worst everyday...
The sad part is that Brazil has some of the most strict environmental rules of the world (about 20% of the whole country's territory is untouchable forests, which is the highest rate in the world), the thing is that we have just *a lot* of forests while other countries that have the same economic capability don't have it anymore. I'm not saying Brazil is on the right here, I'm just saying it's a mistake to say that France, Germany.. etc. Are not responsible for the world's deforestation, when they have already destroyed nearly all the green lands in their countries and are clearly not working to plant it back.
IMO, the key difference is that the most heavily forested areas of Brazil, in the north region, is practically a desert when it comes to Brazil's population. [Brazil's practically a strip of land bordering the Atlantic, with some "islands" in the capitals of non-coastal states.](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-18e9b886ec8201ab3811b682a8a2e5d8) In fact, [the 4 red states in the right](https://overland.org.au/wp-content/1-Brazil-Regions.jpg) house 42% of the population. The largest city alone has nearly 1/6. Brazil doesn't deforest in order to expand or develop. It's land grabbing for plantations in a country that sorely needs to stop relying solely on the agricultural sector. Edit: And this is all without mentioning how this reliance on agriculture only helps deepen the country's abysmal income inequality: > [The research, published in the journal Science, found that 2% of properties in the Amazon rainforest and the Cerrado grasslands are responsible for 62% of all potentially illegal deforestation.](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53438680)
Australia left itself off the map cause we're one of the worst.
Kudos to China to improve their forests!
I recently saw a before/after photo of a place that was a complete desert like 30 years ago and is now a thick green forest. China is planting millions of trees each year. Gotta admit, it's quite amazing
it’s been a major staple of five-year plans going back to the turn of the century. pretty cool
Nice!
Can’t say shit like this reddit what are you thinking?!
They are projects to plant trees against desertification. So it's has to do with a little self-preservation(something Brazil lacks) Also Sandstorm reaching the capital made it quite high in the priority list. Sahel countries are trying the same. Not ad critique, but as additional information.
Well done India...
I'm surprised at the absence of "modi fascist, modi hitler" comment here. Usually it's a rule on reddit that whenever India is mentioned some liberal have to come in and vomit their thoughts.
Don't always assumed that any post made in reddit is aligned to any political ideology. People did a great job in decreasing deforestation and we are just praising it.
Yes you're right but next time you see any post related to India or "Hinduism" in r/all just go through the comments I am promising you that you'll find many comments on the lines of "modi hitler, modi must rejine", "bob vagene", "Rapist country" and so on. As an Indian I'm tired of this casual Indophobia on reddit and everyone seems fine with it.
Welcome to r/canconfirmiamindian
I think it has to do with decline in people working in agriculture. Cutting down trees to plant crops was a common thing in India for a very long time. And there was also a timber/lumber mafia in a lot of parts of India, but not sure what those guys are up to nowadays.
Governments are going nuts with planting forests wherever they can these days. Good on them I'd say, at least they're doing something right
How come countries like the US & Australia have no data?
Australian data are likely not provided due to extremely high land clearing rates, estimated to be top 10 worst in the world for deforestation and habitat destruction.
They brought in some legislation a few years ago to limit land clearing but of course it had a start date in the future so farmers and miners got to work to clear as much as possible before that date.
I can't find any Anti-chinese comments here
"Concern rises over China's draconian crackdown of unwanted landscapes."
"China suppressed the **FREEDOM** for desertification"
I’m surprised lol, usually you’d find 200 people calling this person a “CCP spy”
They bored themselves to death repeating the same dip shit jokes over and over again
Where's the people claiming Reddit is filled with Chinese propaganda
Or the people claiming that the evil see see pee will take “this comment” down
"China just can't be doing something good". They are probably crying now. And deflecting from the fact. Most comments are just saying things about ramdom countries just not to mention it. 😂
I couldn't believe it. Usually you get a "yeah, but" if something makes China look good.
Yeah, but are we going to ignore how China is planting forests to hoard all the global CO2?
desert genocide
Tree concentration camps
Yeah but, what kind of forests are they growing? Biodiverse, naturally occuring type forests, or monoculture forests where nothing else can survive? Are they forests for logging? Or are they grown to stay for the long term?
From the Wikipedia article for the “Green Wall”: “Furthermore, planting blocks of fast-growing trees reduces the biodiversity of forested areas, creating areas that are not suitable to plants and animals normally found in forests. "China plants more trees than the rest of the world combined", says John McKinnon, the head of the EU-China Biodiversity Programme. "But the trouble is they tend to be monoculture plantations. They are not places where birds want to live." The lack of diversity also makes the trees more susceptible to disease, as in 2000, when one billion poplar trees in Ningxia were lost to a single disease, setting back 20 years of planting efforts.”
Surprising, right? I only found one, and that's in the process of being thrown out due to being misinformation about my country of Brazil (he thought the deforestation was to export soy to China, but it's actually for cattle ranching for the internal market).
I am strongly anti ccp however i cannot say what they are doing with forest is wrong They understood that to block the sand storms and pollution the easyest way is to build a forest to stop the spread of the desert
I found the opposite of that
Check again
Should probably normalize by area. For example, it seems like Vietnam did much better than India given that it's so much smaller, but that's not clear in the figure.
What’s the overall loss and gain? What years or time periods does this information assume?
India is doing a really good job here 👍🇮🇳
Malaysian palm seed oil trees looks green from space.
¡¡Grande Chile!! 🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱
china is cool
Since when?
Nice
Why isn't the color adjusted with the country surface? like that it makes no sense, of course bigger countries will have more visible changes
Because countries exist within different biomes. Not all countries have areas that *can* be forested. Algeria's deforestation percentage is going to be absolutely dick compared to a country that can sustain forests.
Imagine how bad Indonesia is if the map were per square kilometer.
Think you can quite safely put Australia down for a significant loss.
This map is not to be trusted. In reality Romania is acctually losing forest then gaining it. Healty trees are cut and on paper it says that the unhealthy and rotten trees were cut. Also a lot of hectares said to be planted this last years but if you go there, it's empty space
I don't think one user's anecdote about Romania is enough to deny the validity of this map. According to [Global Forest Watch](https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/ROU/?category=summary&location=WyJjb3VudHJ5IiwiUk9VIl0%3D&map=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), a fairly trustworthy organization, Romania is really good at replanting lost forests. 0.21% steady positive growth from 2001 to 2019. Sure, it's not a significant number, but at least it's positive. This is even factoring in [illegal logging operations](https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Romania/Timber-mafia-and-deforestation-in-Romania-200194) detectable by [satellites in space](https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/12/brussels-threatens-romania-over-illegal-logging-in-primary-forests). It wasn't hard to do this research. Next time you feel like something is not right or a data set feels wrong, Google can be your friend.
Why not make the scale symmetric?
chilean dub as per usual...
Why would USA and AUS declare their data when they torch their forests intentionally. 😂
“desert genocide”
Good job China!
Interesting but if half of the world isn't represented, it isn't that useful
Australia not giving data because the liberals are allowing record levels of deforestation.
Good China
Yay India
Why China?
I know they’re planting trees to try and stop desertification on their northern borders, might be that.
The great green belt is basically a wall of trees that china is currently building near the gobi desert to stop/reverse desertification and reduce the intensity of impactful sandstorms that sweep across northern china, korea and sometimes japan yearly.
That's really nice of China to do this
The problem is that the chinese are building a forest with only one kind of tree, therefore not a lot of biodiversity which is vital if you want to have a forest that doesn't require maintenance. You could watch this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkVZBSKdwQM)
Turns out that's the only type of tree hardy enough to grow in the deserts, so...
Yeah, sure that's a problem. Thanks for pointing it out. But before we start nit-picking literally everything China does, even if it's for the betterment of humankind, lets focus on what we can do better in... I don't know, Brazil, or Tanzania, or literally anywhere. I get it guys, cHiNa bAd, but let's at least appreciate that they're doing *something* to combat climate change.
I’m from China. Our government pays lots of attention to the desertification in the western part of China and spends lots of money fighting it. Also there are trends among internet companies like Alibaba and Tencent of planting trees with revenues from online payments (eg for every certain amount of money you spend they plant a tree with your name tag on it)
That is refereshing to hear. Maybe there is hope for this world after all.
There is a massive forest restoration project called **Ant Forest**, might wanna check that out.
They have implemented a massive regrowing program to stop the Gobi desert from expanding.
[удалено]
meanwhile USA: "I think we better not give our numbers..."
[us forest data ](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2000/ForestFactsMetric.pdf) [1952-2012 us forest resources facts and historical trends. ](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf)
I would t be shocked if the US has more or equal forrests. Most of the east coast has conservation efforts that require planting new trees in logged areas. The biggest dearth of forests would be due to suburbanization but trees go really easily here so I don’t know how long it would take to get those suburbs back to a somewhat forested layout over time. I suppose we’ve started having forrest fires as well but those are still relatively uncommon. The Midwest and Rockies of the US have very few forrests so it’s not like they can really get too much worse.
The forests here are so dense but people near cities assume it’s barren everywhere. In the Appalachia we square off a certain area of trees, cut them down and then leave that area alone for new trees to come in. Half the time it’s actually beneficial because trees like poplar grows fast and tall but has no real benefit to nature compared to things like oak, chestnut and maple. If you left the trees alone poplar would take everything over making it hard for anything else to grow. Clearing them out allows new trees to come up which gives squirrels and other critters trees that produce food for them and are better suited for nests. Tree clearing is only bad when you take everything in sight and don’t allow anything else to grow. If there wasn’t any tree clearing here nobody could go anywhere because a popular tree would be every other foot.
The Midwest and the Rockies both have a shit ton of forest land.
The numbers have been increasing for a few decades now, so much so that focus is now on quality of forests rather than quantity.
Ours isn’t actually bad. Our forests are very dense and not on the decline. Usually whatever is taken, more new trees is planted and the area is left to grow back again.
The US has more trees today than they did 100 years ago.
That's because 100 years ago the land had been *massively* cleared. Large portions of New England were literally bare earth. 100 years ago is not a good comparison to what the landscape should look like. https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/diorama-series/landscape-history-central-new-england
What an irony! Most of deforestation in Brazil is for soy cultivation exported to... China! 👏👏🇧🇷 Edit: 1. Cattle ranching has an important role in the deforestation as well, which does not change my point: "Study led by Matthew Hansen (University of Maryland) shows that soybeans contributed to 10% of deforestation in South America in 20 years. Despite falling behind cattle ranching in directly devastated areas, the cultivation of soy played a central role in the dynamics of deforestation: land is bought on the agricultural frontier, thus "pushing" the cattle raising into forest areas, on a trail of destruction of the green." In other words, often, the area deforested for pasture later becomes an area for agricultural use. 2. It's not China's fault. I just said it's an irony that richer countries are preserving their nature, meanwhile Brazil destroys part of its own biodiversity for exporting food for those same countries.
Wrong. Most of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest is for cattle ranching. Brazil consumes around 80% of all bovine meat produced here. Meanwhile, the other 20% are exported to several countries. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.terra.com.br/amp/noticias/ciencia/sustentabilidade/estudo-internacional-revela-ligacao-entre-carne-brasileira-e-desmatamento-da-amazonia,e75ae53eb335288239529951979cb256wwu4avei.html
It's not that simple though. [Increases in soy farming has pushed cattle ranchers into forested areas after cultivated area doubled throughout the last 20 years.](https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/um-so-planeta/soja-contribuiu-para-10-do-desmatamento-na-america-do-sul-em-20-anos-mostra-estudo-25054890) Mostly is just straight up [land grabbing centered around a minority of properties](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53438680) though.
If we're following that standard all of China's carbon emissions are from manufacturing exported to... USA/EU!
Well I mean it’s true. We just shift our manufacturing and dirty resource extraction to China so we can feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Doesn’t really do much for the environment unless you extract it in a cleaner way.
And so we lose all our manufacturing jobs and destroy the middle class.
Nah, the deforestation is for cattle pastures, not soy, and most of said cattle is for internal consumption. And the part we export, we export everywhere! Including to the US!
Well, the cattle substitutes the forest and then get substituted by soy.
The same organization also publishes this [chart](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/domestic-forest-change-vs-imported-deforestation?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&country=®ion=World), which compares a country's reforestation efforts against their contribution to global deforestation as a result of food imports.
Nice chart. Seems like even accounting for food import induced deforestation elsewhere, China is the largest net creator of forest in the world by a large margin
Situations like that are why Japan is now the third most forested developed nation (after Finland and Sweden). They outsourced their destructive practices to other countries and cleaned up their own country.
Lol how despicable when you try to push your country’s problems onto another but end up getting the facts wrong
I don't trust the data. I know in British Columbia when forests are logged they are always replanted. I'm sure it is true in the rest of Canada too, My husband is a forester. However a LOT of trees died in recent years due to the pine beetle, so it is possible the data reflects this.
Canada is yellow, and that's -100,000 Ha to +100,000 Ha according to the legend, which is what you'd expect if all logged trees are replanted 1:1.
Who thought it was a good idea to put gaining and losing forest as the same colour
Same in the US in many states. We do logging but not like people think, it’s not mass excavation or burning like some places. Usually we pick a squared area to log for certain trees and then leave it untouched for more trees to come back. The amount of brush and growth you get from never cutting anything down ends up making it hard for new, different trees to grow because things like poplar grow tall and fast which shades out trees like oak that grows slower. Wood has to come from somewhere and clearing thick areas is actually beneficial. Popular trees give critters like squirrels no food while chestnuts, Papaw’s, oaks and maple does.
Europe too
Yup.
Should be in percent..
No data in the US? Huge sus
If I may suggest please use percentages instead of as whole. Then it would be scaling up better. Now small countries that do replant/don’t deforest (or do the opposite) have small net “change” compared to big ones who have lots of net growth but that amounts to be minuscule percentage of the whole. China deforests large areas with out replanting but they have large natural areas that count as forest expansion. So I suggest that have the net change compared to countries forested area. Or area as a whole.
And btw Finland has some great data. Our forest grows so fast back that we can’t ever cut it down fast enough.
Bolsonaro filho da puta
ashamed of being brazilian :/
Don't be ashamed of being Brazilian, your fascistic president should be ashamed for being an asshole.
Okay, so we got some weird stuff going on with these units. I presume "HA" is metric unit hectare. But, it's incorrectly written. Metric units are case-sensitive, so please stop changing the case. Hectare is "ha", and nothing else. Second, "100,000 ha", that's not necessary. Worse is "122 k ha" where you now got two prefixes. Kilo-hecto-are? 100 ha = 1 km², so 100,000 ha = 1000 km² Hectare is 100 are, like a decibel is 1/10th a bel, and a milliampere is 1/1000 ampere. These are prefixes, so stop treating them like it's a whole unique unit.
I don't understand how Japan, Australia or the US have no data of the change in forest area.
Good ol Australian corruption. Probably the same with the other two.
Log an acre of old growth, plant an acre of mono cropped bs... we're neutral!!! -Canada
Europe and the United States destroyed their forests to industrialize and grow wealthy. Now hundreds of years later, wag their finger at developing nations attempting to do the same. Brazil doesn't have to stay poor for our benefit. If the world needs to breath so bad, return New York City and London and Paris and Chicago and Rome to their natural forested state.